Since my previous blog entry was an entirely partisan guess about how things are going to turn out…and is already approaching a potentially unwieldy one hundred comments…I invite folks who actually want to discuss this election night to do so here.
Since my previous blog entry was an entirely partisan guess about how things are going to turn out…and is already approaching a potentially unwieldy one hundred comments…I invite folks who actually want to discuss this election night to do so here.
• 
I have to say that I’ve never felt more afraid of the next 4 years after an election since, well, ever. I’m actually surprised at how bad I’m taking all this. I feel like the soul just got sucked out of me. I watched Kerry’s concession speech and really felt for him. The nation is divided, and if Bush continues his policies that gap won’t be closed at all. I know people talk about the time to heal, but I’m very pessimistic about that. Bush got elected, despite the fact that a majority of the world didn’t want him elected. Knowing that scares me. If we continue on the path that we’re on, the world won’t just look at Bush, they’ll look at US. (or maybe they already have) He maybe the us president, but he isn’t my president at all. I say that since I’ve never seen a president with whom I disagreed so fundamentally and so completely. Sigh, but that’s democracy for ya. Least I’m thankful for having a chance to vote. Sorry, just needed to vent a little bit.
I will have to look it up. It is from a poll done in 5 (?) European countries that have had legal homosexual marriage for 10 years. It is quoted by a number of conservatives, such as by Jim Dobson and Rep. Dave Barton of Texas. I looked up the original info at one point but don’t know if I can find it right now.
Be useful to have the study itself, actually. Heated political debates tend to quote mine studies, and shear it of context and other facts (such as, possibly, heterosexual partners switch every three years, or that the sampling was taken from younger subjects).
Jim In Iowa said: However, I would strongly suggest (and some psychiatrists say there are actual studies that demonstrate) that a child being raised by his or her biological parents is without question better than any other option, all things being equal.
There is no question that a stable home environment is essential for developing a healthy child. The overwhelming evidence so far is that divorce has a devestating effect on children. The current evidence for gay marriage in Europe where it has now been legal for 10 years is that gay marriages are even less stable than traditional marriage. In addition, gay marriages are not monogamous even when they do stay together.
Don’t even try to play the psychological research angle, because you will lose. While a stable home environment is the best environment to raise a child, a troubled marriage where the parents fight is worse for the child than divorce. No one can predict if a marriage will go sour, but if it does it is in the child’s best interest if the couple divorces.
So you may have numbers saying that same-sex marraiges are less stable than opposite sex marraiges- what do these numbers say about the presence of children in the marraiges that disband? I am willing to bet that opposite sex couples are more likeley to remain together because they don’t want to harm the children.
Oh great. So what’s Bush’s first act as re-elected president? Raise the national debt: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=11&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling
Please, Bush supporters, explain how this is a good thing.
I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married? (Saying that it doesn’t matter, it is none of our business, doesn’t answer a valid question. It just avoids it.)
Jim in Iowa
Simple… I think they should have all the same rights as heterosexual people, including the right to marry whomever they want. I don’t give a dámņ about financial considerations… I just want the country to remember that all are created equal… And should be treated thusly.
Yo:
Liberals have bìŧçhëd for years. We bìŧçhëd during Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Nothing new there…we’re used to it.
Smart people have always been in the minority in this country, and that’s our burden to bear.
Republicans can go on and on about morality while their leaders mortgage their grand-children’s future with their tax cuts for the richest Americans. Clinton may have had consentual extramarital sex while in office, but he didn’t screw up the country’s finances the way the current Administration has (“Eight years of a booming economy. The man must be punished.” Bill Maher).
Well, they have all the reins of power to themselves now. Nothing’s stopping them from making everything Right and Perfect. I wait with clean hands and composure for the coming NeoCon Utopia.
…fortunately, I packed a lunch. May be a bit of a wait, there.
“I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married?
-Jim in Iowa”
Speaking of the gays that I know, most of them want to be able to share the same benefits (legal- and tax-wise) that hetero couples do. Most also want to be able to say they’re married because it will legitimize their love for their partner in the eyes of others… particularly those who think homosexuality is an abomination. But mostly, it’s for the same reason most hetero couples do- as a declaration of permanent love for another person; a binding mental, spiritual, and physical contract between two people who are in love and want to stay that way.
I’m hardly the go-to guy for the gay movement, but of the many, many homosexuals I know, none have ever said they want to ‘tear down the current definition of marriage,’ nor have I ever heard a serious proponent of homosexual rights claiming such. None I know have ever even hinted at wanting to destroy the sanctity of marriage, because most gays want to be blessed by that selfsame sanctity of marriage.
I don’t want to insult Iowa Jim, because he’s one of the few guys around here from either side of the fence who goes out of his way to discuss things like a reasonable person, but I’m tempted to think that you’re (unknowingly) repeating a misguided falsehood: that gays want to destroy the institution of marriage. Again, I’m not the end-all-be-all of homosexual advocacy, but I’ve never heard of any homosexual making such a claim. They want to be invited into the house, not burn it down.
Responding to another poster, who said that homosexuality was ‘immoral and disgusting’: When you think about it, the act of heterosexual love can be both immoral and disgusting. I know adults who (sadly) don’t enjoy sex because they think it’s just plain gross. What makes the act of homosexual sex any more or less disgusting than heterosexual sex?
-tOjb
Oh great. So what’s Bush’s first act as re-elected president? Raise the national debt…. Please, Bush supporters, explain how this is a good thing.
Your comment can be misleading. The article you posted clearly says Congress (which yes, is Republican controlled) put off this action until after the election. Not exactly the first time this has been done by either party.
I agree, this is not a good thing. However, it should be clear that this is to pay for things already in motion, not to fund new things. This cannot continue, but this is not something Bush could change today even if he wanted. Time will tell if my fellow Republicans will do as promised and reduce spending.
By the way, thanks for those who answered my question about gay marriage.
Jim in Iowa
And another thing, while I’m riding shotgun for the homosexual rights movement: Iowa Jim, would you be willing to concede the point that the marriage habits of gays in Europe (from the study you referenced) might not be indicative of the marriage habits of gays in America? If memory serves, the divorce rate in Europe is significantly higher in Europe, even among hetero couples. If that’s the case, would it still be accurate to base our standards on European ones?
-tOjb
That penultimate line should have read: “If memory serves, the divorce rate is significantly higher in Europe than in America, even among hetero couples.” Mea culpa.
-tOjb
Jim in Iowa,
Thanks for clarifying that for me. I think you’re right, I misread the article. In re-checking it, it looks like even if Kerry had won, Congress would’ve done this anyway. The timing just rankled me.
Perhaps if I go back to sleep, this entire day will simply have been a nightmare. There could be no way that some idiot like Bush could be reelected?
Democrats want to be upset they lost the election, fine. I can sympathize. If Bush had lost the election I would be upset too.
However.
What is absolutely uncalled for is this utter crap about “half the country are idiots” or “half the country were fooled by the lies” insults I’ve been seeing here. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU call those who were for Bush “stupid people” (PAD), “bigoted” (Nivek), “this country is just the the Taliban with Christians instead of Muslims” (Bladestar), “How can people be so bigoted and so stupidly close minded to not see what’s happening to the country?” (Aaron Thall), “the Republican party won’t be happy until they’ve legislated the melting pot out of existence. Let’s all be white, Christian, straight, church-going folk. If you don’t fit into that paradigm, America has no place for you.” (Rich), “blind worship” (Karen-Full-of-Hate).
That’s why you lost. And you lost. The Democrats lost. The. Democrats. Lost. You lost seats in the Senate. You lost seats in the House. You lost governorships. That doesn’t happen when people agree with you. Until you accept that, you will continue to lose. You better not blame this on people you elitist snobs look down upon.
And to address the fearmongers out there (all liberals, I might add):
You know what? I would have loved to have said that when Clinton got his second term, he would lead us into economic nightmare, make us less safe, and create a scandal-ridden administration.
Wait a minute…he did. Or at least, I say he did. So if I say it, it must be true.
Ok, this was pretty venomous. But I’m still in a good mood because the majority of American voters decided John Kerry and John Edwards were DANGEROUS. the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING. the majority of American voters decided that the Democratic way is WRONG. And you cannot spin that by calling the majority of American voters STUPID. Or you know what, just say it. Because then you were defeated by stupid people, which puts you even lower on the food chain.
So that’s it then.
You’ve chosen unilateralism over engagement. You’ve backed agression over diplomacy. You were lied to, and your lads are being kileld as a result, but that’s OK by you.
Time perhaps to cede the leadership of the free world to someone that wants the job.
R. Maheras – I speak less of the political stances that countries have made in either supporting or not supporting the US (ie ome of your valid points about the UN and US allies) , and more of the position of the masses. Sure, it doesn
Well, unless proven that the election has been rigged (and that’s what we’re all hoping for), America has proven that it wants to suffer. They deserve everything they get from Bush’s insanity.
This first and then hearing Rob Leifeld being over the moon that X-Force is selling really well, even provoking kids to ‘collect’ the comics as they intentionally print 5,000 less than people order, it’s all too much.
America’s gone too far. It’s like they don’t learn, they can’t learn. They put idiots in charge and call talentless hacks artists. It might be just an odd/bad day in general but I say burn it. Kill everyone over there and burn the dámņ land to the ground. Leave no one alive and salt the earth so no one can live there. Make it a reminder of how wrong society can get. Maybe then the rest of us will learn not to be like that.
It’s a harsh solution, but it might be the only one.
*sorry, didn’t mean to make it look like i was quoting r maheras, just addressing his/her comments
Charles K:
>That’s why you lost. And you lost. The Democrats lost. The. Democrats. Lost. You lost seats in the Senate. You lost seats in the House. You lost governorships. That doesn’t happen when people agree with you.
*snip*
>Ok, this was pretty venomous. But I’m still in a good mood because the majority of American voters decided John Kerry and John Edwards were DANGEROUS. the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING. the majority of American voters decided that the Democratic way is WRONG. And you cannot spin that by calling the majority of American voters STUPID. Or you know what, just say it. Because then you were defeated by stupid people, which puts you even lower on the food chain.
Your statement of not happening when people agree with you” is a simplistic one that treads dangerous ground. This mentality will continue to drive the wedge between people. The simple fact is that people did agree. Almost 50%.
Although this is a single statement and not the words of every “Conservative”, the biggest issue that I continue to have with the whole idea of a two=party system with “sides” is that it often becomes whittled down to a sense of right and wrong, black and white. The world is neither of these, nor are any of the issues being debated.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m not feeling like a sore loser. I’m not chewing on any sour grapes. I’m not being melodramatic. I am truly saddened that a possible future for this country and the world that has become so important to me as a possibility is over. I’m sad to think about continued policies, both domestic and foreign, that I disagree with and consider avoidable will continue for another 4 years.
Fred
Wow, Charles K! Way to take the high road by making sweeping generalizations about why the Republicans won. I mean, a lot of the liberal/Democratic folks here aren’t above blame either, but I’ve got to tip my hat to you.
My favorite line was how “the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING.” Do you really think 51% of American voters went to the polls and said to themselves, “boy, the Kerry/Edwards ticket is just too MORALLY LACKING for me. Better vote for Bush!” Do you think even a significant portion of the vote was decided solely because Kerry was percieved as MORALLY LACKING?
This gets back to what PAD was saying about ‘stupid voters.’ I can guarantee you that a significant portion (if not a majority) of voters cast their ballots yesterday while being mostly-to-totally unaware of where the candidates stood on some-to-most of the issues. And that goes for both sides of the fence… there are just as many people out there (well, 48% to 51%, anyway) who voted blindly Democratic. But when a majority of the populace thinks Saddam Hussien was behind 9/11, it’s not much of a stretch to call that voting populace ‘uninformed.’ And when you’re uninformed, ‘stupid’ is just a hop, skip and jump away.
-tOjb
“If memory serves, the divorce rate is significantly higher in Europe than in America, even among hetero couples.”
Memory does not serve. The divorce rate in Europe is significantly lower than in the US. Except for Sweden and Finland, all the industrialized countries have lower divorce rates than the US (e.g. Germany:39%; France: 41%; to the US’s 54%). And that’s after you take their somewhat lower marriage rates into account. If you just look at the rate per 1000 people, the US has double the divorce rate of all the European countries except England. Even there, the US is 25% higher.
Curiously, Canada, though superficially similar to the US in culture, has a divorce rate about half that of the US. Marriages in Canada last an average of about 14 years, while those in the US last an average of about 8. Go figure. Perhaps if they didn’t allow gay marriage in Canada, those divorce numbers would improve even more.
FWIW, some former Eastern bloc countries do have higher rates than the US.
Also, there are currently only two countires in the world (Canada & Netherlands) that allow gay marriage, with Spain possibly becoming the third soon: http://www.gmax.co.za/look04/10/01-spain.html
I don’t know how long it’s been allowed in the Netherlands, but it’s only been a bit over a year in Canada.
So how did they do a ten year study on five European countries where it’s allowed?
What, am I, at only 41, an elder statesman here? I think we all need a little perspective…
We did not witness the arrival of the Four Horsemen today – just the reelection of a sub-par intellect who takes the advice of ethically-questionable people. It’s happened before, folks. Our Constitution has safeguards built into it to keep such conditions from becoming devastating. Just keep the neocons from amending anything for four years, and we should be okay.
The Democrats didn’t lose – John Kerry lost. It’s entirely possible that, had another candidate been nominated, he might have won (perhaps, for instance, the wet dream of John McCain switching parties, and getting the nomination…).
And for Jim – I am white. My wife is black. There are clear physical differences between us. Further, for reasons we need not go into here, we cannot have any more children. Does this delegitimize our marriage? Did we “tear down the institution”? (And before you claim this has nothing to do with anything, remember – thirty-five years ago, when Loving v. Virginia was before the Supreme Court, there were those who argued that the “clear physical differences” between blacks and whites meant that intermarriage was “against Nature”. I’m [barely] old enough to remember…)
Charles K
What is absolutely uncalled for is this utter crap about “half the country are idiots” or “half the country were fooled by the lies” insults I’ve been seeing here. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU call those who were for Bush “stupid people” (PAD), “bigoted” (Nivek), “this country is just the the Taliban with Christians instead of Muslims” (Bladestar), “How can people be so bigoted and so stupidly close minded to not see what’s happening to the country?” (Aaron Thall), “the Republican party won’t be happy until they’ve legislated the melting pot out of existence. Let’s all be white, Christian, straight, church-going folk. If you don’t fit into that paradigm, America has no place for you.” (Rich), “blind worship” (Karen-Full-of-Hate).
Man, all those comments about stupidity and idiocy, and I’m full of hate? Did you read the rest of you’re “uncalled for” message? I guess you aren’t living in that proverbial glass house.
Jonathan,
What, am I, at only 41, an elder statesman here? I think we all need a little perspective…
I’ve got you beat, but I won’t say by how much.
And I must take exception with your statement, “the Democrats didn’t lose…” Yes, they did. And across the board. We couldn’t even re-elect the Senate minority leader.
Neil C said…
Also, there are currently only two countires in the world (Canada & Netherlands) that allow gay marriage
*snip*
I don’t know how long it’s been allowed in the Netherlands, but it’s only been a bit over a year in Canada.
Just to clear up some of what you said there, I’d like to say that gay marriage is far from a done deal here in Canada. Canada as a nation has not legalized gay marriage; however five out of ten provinces and one out of three territories have, with a sixth province expected to do so very soon. The greater question of whether denying marriage to homosexual couples constitutes a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is currently before our Supreme Court, with a ruling expected early next year.
As for your suggestion that our divorce rate would be lower if we did not allow gay marriages, I find that to be both highly unlikely and slightly ridiculous. As you said, gay marriages haven’t been allowed anywhere in this country for more than a year, so I highly doubt many, if any, of these marriages have ended in divorce already.
J. Alexander wrote:
“Perhaps if I go back to sleep, this entire day will simply have been a nightmare. There could be no way that some idiot like Bush could be reelected?”
I could never understand those who write off Bush as some village idiot cowboy, yet, at the same time, attribute all of these incredibly intricate conspiracy theory schemes to him as well. This “idiot” beat the best the Democratic Party could throw at him, and, in the process, increased Republican control of both the House and the Senate.
Why do you suppose that is? As someone who understands boths sides, I’ll tell you my opinion. I think the people driving the Democratic Party today are arrogant, smug, self-righteous know-it-alls who don’t even try to understand or empathize with anyone who is “stupid” enough not to agree with them. They underestimated Bush because they do not respect him or his simple philosophy. Big mistake. As someone who played quite a bit of competitive sports and spent 20 years in the military, I learned a long time ago that you should NEVER underestimate or disrespect your adversary. There’s an old saying that says, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” This means know and understand your adversary, or you won’t know what hit you when if you do meet in battle.
One final observation: The Democratic Party today is not the Democratic Party I once knew, except, perhaps, in Illinois. I don’t know why that is, but that’s my perception.
An addendum to my previous post: Canada did, in fact, have its first homosexual divorce on Sept. 13. As far as I know, this is the only time it’s occurred, and I doubt that one divorce was enough to make our rate skyrocket.
They simply want to live their lives with the same rights, responsibilities, commitments and equalities as all other Americans.
They do. Gay Americans can marry any one I can, and have the same rights I do.
As for your suggestion that our divorce rate would be lower if we did not allow gay marriages, I find that to be both highly unlikely and slightly ridiculous.
Yeah, I was being extremely sarcastic. I, too, can’t imagine that the # of gay marriages that have taken place would have affected the divorce rate here (I live in Canada too!) in the slightest, not even if every single union had ended in divorce the very next day.
And of course you’re right about only some of the provinces/territories allowing such marriages. Doesn’t change my point. It’s hard to find two, much less five countries with which to “prove” gay marriage destroys “traditional” marriage.
It’s worth noting that one of the British Columbia cabinet ministers is gay, and got married last year. And it’s also worth noting that the BC currently has a right-wing government. Interestingly, nobody really cared that he did that.
As for “destroying marriage as we know it” front, well, so far, it doesn’t appear that anyone is trying to force my wife and I to dissolve our marriage or whatever the heck was supposed to happen. In fact, I don’t notice any difference at all. Does that mean I’m being obtuse?
…on a side note, hopefully people payed close attention to their local elections, too– lots of judges, sheriffs, county commissioners and so forth, folks that have an even more direct effect on our lives..
..disappointed that michigan passed the gay marriage ban– which, technically, was already on the books.. I guess gays will all slowly evaporate now..
detroit public schools will retain a “corporation” type structure with a CEO appointed by the Mayor (now 2 years in place), and other positions as decided by the CEO.. but IMO it leaves little direct accountability/involvement to parents of the community… For what it
Ah, sorry for missing your sarcasm. I haven’t come close to reading the entire thread. I just thought I’d throw out the facts for our neighbours to the south.
I, too, await a solid definition of what is supposed to happen when the time-honoured institution of marriage crumbles. No fire and brimstone raining from the heavens just yet, but you never know I guess.
Just keep the neocons from amending anything for four years, and we should be okay.
With the Repubs in full control of our gov’t now, I don’t see this happening.
So, yes, I’ll say it again: there are too many stupid people in this country, and it appears most of them voted for Bush.
Jeff:
>I, too, await a solid definition of what is supposed to happen when the time-honoured institution of marriage crumbles. No fire and brimstone raining from the heavens just yet, but you never know I guess.
With the current divorce rate in the U.S. at about 60%, maybe allowing gay marriage will save the institution. 😉 Makes as much sense to me as theorizing that allowing such a thing would kill off something that is already squealing out its death cries.
Fred
um… before I’m misunderstood. My intention with the above statement was to imply that we need to look at the ridiculously high divorce rate within our society and attempt to figure out and trouble-shoot, rather than to point to straw man arguments against gay marriage….. my intention was NOT that marriage is dying.
“I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married? (Saying that it doesn’t matter, it is none of our business, doesn’t answer a valid question. It just avoids it.)”
It’s been answered by others but I’ll just add my 2 cents. They want to have a legal and ceremonial commitment to someone they love. Without having that right they probably feel like second class citiezens. Making some kind of civil ceremonies as a substitute is no more fair to them than making a perfectly nice water fountain for the colored folks to use.
“Bill,
As you must know, some of us are devastated. While many on this board think a lot of us were only anti-Bush, most of us truly believed in the Kerry/Edwards ticket and the promise of a brighter future, based on our political philosophies.”
Very little of that came through, buried in the din of the over the top rabid Bush hatred. Say what you will about Bush, he has the tremendous good fortune of having enemies who, more often than not, shoot themselves in the foot. If the Kerry supporters had spent as much time talking up Kerry as they did tearing down Bush they might have attracted more to their side…then again, since so many of them seem to believe that anyone who is not already on their side is a moron, that would probably never happen. The contempt was too obvious.
That said, Kerry did show a very good human side today. Like Bob Dole he never looked so presidential as when he no longer had any chance to win. Funny how that often happens, I think sometimes these guys are afraid to be themselves until it’s too late and then you see what it was that made folks who know them think they might be the right guy for the job.
“Time perhaps to cede the leadership of the free world to someone that wants the job.”
Well, have at it, old sport. I wish you well. Seriously.
“Well, unless proven that the election has been rigged (and that’s what we’re all hoping for), America has proven that it wants to suffer. They deserve everything they get from Bush’s insanity.
This first and then hearing Rob Leifeld being over the moon that X-Force is selling really well, even provoking kids to ‘collect’ the comics as they intentionally print 5,000 less than people order, it’s all too much.
America’s gone too far. It’s like they don’t learn, they can’t learn. They put idiots in charge and call talentless hacks artists. It might be just an odd/bad day in general but I say burn it. Kill everyone over there and burn the dámņ land to the ground. Leave no one alive and salt the earth so no one can live there. Make it a reminder of how wrong society can get. Maybe then the rest of us will learn not to be like that.
It’s a harsh solution, but it might be the only one.”
This is either some kind of satirical performance art or you are the craziest loon ever to grace this site, no small feat there.
so when does PAD’s Hulk come out again? 🙂
And for Jim – I am white. My wife is black. There are clear physical differences between us. Further, for reasons we need not go into here, we cannot have any more children. Does this delegitimize our marriage? Did we “tear down the institution”? (And before you claim this has nothing to do with anything, remember – thirty-five years ago, when Loving v. Virginia was before the Supreme Court, there were those who argued that the “clear physical differences” between blacks and whites meant that intermarriage was “against Nature”. I’m [barely] old enough to remember…)
I can’t believe I actually have to spell this out. I understand that on its surface, a similar argument was used in the past. That does not mean it is the same thing today.
Skin color is the ONLY significant difference between you and your wife on the basis of race. There is a far more substantial difference between a man and a woman when it comes to their gender. A man cannot (naturally) give birth to a child, only a woman can. Two men or two women cannot, without artificial means, give birth to a child, only one man and one woman can. You are interchangeable with any other male of any other race for the purpose of procreation (all things being equal), and your wife the same. But if you change a wife in a marriage with a man, they cannot bear children.
Again, the fact that someone cannot or choses not to have children is beside the point. The issue is not whether a married couple have a child, the point is that if a child is born, what kind of “family” has nature or God designed as the right environment for him or her to be raised?
In one sense it is totally valid to make a distinction between marriage and having children. However, I am suggesting the reverse is not equally true. Marriage is not solely for the purpose of having kids, but marriage exists, in part, for the very purpose of nurturing and raising a kid.
You doubt this? Then why are “civil unions” not seen as enough? In my opinion, it comes down to a claim that gays do not have equal “rights” and that claim is in turn tied to a right to adoption or artificially have kids.
And another thing, while I’m riding shotgun for the homosexual rights movement: Iowa Jim, would you be willing to concede the point that the marriage habits of gays in Europe (from the study you referenced) might not be indicative of the marriage habits of gays in America? If memory serves, the divorce rate in Europe is significantly higher in Europe, even among hetero couples. If that’s the case, would it still be accurate to base our standards on European ones?
Let me start with saying I cannot find the study I referenced earlier. I will keep looking.
What I have found is that once gay marriage became legal in the Netherlands, the rate of gays being married rapidly declined. (This fact is easily found with a Google search. I lost the link and won’t take time to find it since it came up multiple times.) So to answer the question posed, I would agree it may well be different here. The marriage rate has also declined in Europe.
That being said, IF I can find the documentation, I am not sure it changes anything. It would suggest, at best, that gay marriages do not last any longer than hetero marriages.
What danger does gay marriage pose? I think it will further the problem that no fault divorce has already created. It will put kids in fractured homes, often with one parent. Now let me be clear, many single parents are doing the best they can and work hard at it. But the evidence is clear that the poverty level, conviction for commiting crimes, drug use, etc., are all significantly higher for kids of single parents than those who have a father and a mother. I believe that allowing gay marriage will just make this trend worse. Can’t prove it since it is a prediction for the future, but it seems a very likely consequence.
Jim in Iowa
Oh great. So what’s Bush’s first act as re-elected president? Raise the national debt…. Please, Bush supporters, explain how this is a good thing.
Your comment can be misleading. The article you posted clearly says Congress (which yes, is Republican controlled) put off this action until after the election. Not exactly the first time this has been done by either party.
I agree, this is not a good thing. However, it should be clear that this is to pay for things already in motion, not to fund new things. This cannot continue, but this is not something Bush could change today even if he wanted. Time will tell if my fellow Republicans will do as promised and reduce spending.
By the way, thanks for those who answered my question about gay marriage.
Jim in Iowa
The point is still valid. Congress is having to deal with Bush’s excessive spending. Do not even bring up the war, because taking that away, he is still spending more than we are taking in. Hiding the fact that we now have more debt than we ever did before is definitely on Bush’s head. If not, why did he not mention this in any of his speeches? Because he didn’t want to admit what a black hole he is leading the country into.
The point is still valid.
What part of my comment “This cannot continue” was unclear? I agree that without the war we are still spending too much. The truth, however, is that congress is having to deal with Congress’ excessive spending. As has been accurately noted, Bush either vetoed either only one or no bills during his first 4 years, so I agree he shares the blame. But Congress has been and continues to be at least equally to blame (and I think even more).
You are preaching to the choir. My only point is that Bush’s action today was not to take on a “new” debt for a “new” initiative, but to pay for what he has already overspent.
Jim in Iowa
Dhanson in 2008! Haha
Jim in Iowa wrote…
But the evidence is clear that the poverty level, conviction for commiting crimes, drug use, etc., are all significantly higher for kids of single parents than those who have a father and a mother. I believe that allowing gay marriage will just make this trend worse. Can’t prove it since it is a prediction for the future, but it seems a very likely consequence.
You’re correct in stating that single-parent households face enormous difficulties that are not always (but sometimes are) faced by families with two parental figures.
Why, though, do you think that this situation will be amplified in the case of same-sex unions? The principle reasons for the problems you listed are poverty, which results from having one source of income, and the parent being less able to care for his/her child.
In the case of same-sex marriages, you will (not always, but usually) have two loving parents, who likely each have a steady source of income. I fail to see how this would worsen the trends you speak of.
And yes, I realize you said that your prediction can’t be proven, but I’d like to hear the reasoning behind your belief that it’s likely.
My question is this, What do we have to do to get the South to seceed from the Union again?
I mean they could become the Confederate States of Nascarland, make Bush their king, ban same-sex marriage, but legalize same-family marriage, make Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red White and Blue” their National Anthem while they sit in their trailer parks spitting tobacco juice and firing their assault weapons in wildly into the air.
Okay, Now that I’ve offended someone, My point is this- We’re hearing so much about this “mandate” the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can’t really do that, It just proves that we’re so divided now that it’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever get through as one nation.
gene hall wrote…
My point is this- We’re hearing so much about this “mandate” the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can’t really do that, It just proves that we’re so divided now that it’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever get through as one nation.
It’s true – you guys are in an awful mess. Of course, the first thing you could start doing about it is refraining from over-the-top rants like the one you opened with (though it’s all too easy to think things like that).
There are no easy solutions when a country is divided so bitterly. I’m optimistic, though, that the “two Americas” can still find their common ground and stand together again…someday.
Sorry if I sound too sappy, but as a Canadian I know a thing or two about deep divisions within a nation 🙂
gene hall writes: “My question is this, What do we have to do to get the South to seceed from the Union again?
I mean they could become the Confederate States of Nascarland, make Bush their king, ban same-sex marriage, but legalize same-family marriage, make Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red White and Blue” their National Anthem while they sit in their trailer parks spitting tobacco juice and firing their assault weapons in wildly into the air. “
Wow, talk about your bigots. But you’re wrong about your uninformed assertion. Breakdowns of district by district voting even in the states won by John F’ing Kerry (in the east, west, midwest, and ‘up thar’ where them dámņ yankees are, ya’all…) show that voters in the larger cities voted for Kerry, but outside of the cities in the surrounding burbs and rural areas went for good ol’ W.
This is where I would jokingly quote good ol’ John Rocker about your city subways, but then you’d probably think I was serious.
Who doesn’t love The Onion?
Today’s top story: God Puts His Tool
Back Into Office
Well, I for one am glad I got my so called Stupid self out and voted for Bush.
Get this. One of my friends who is on military disability was unfortunately told one of the lies by a Democratic representative that Bush was pushing a bill through Congress to cause him to lose half of his benefits. Another scare tactic and outright lie used to sway innocent voters to their cause. Of course he was voting for Kerry to prevent him losing money right?
I explained to him that he was lied to, that factcheck.org proved he was being lied to, and he still voted for Kerry. He didn’t beleive me. What’s going to happen to his vote in 2008 when he finds out, on his own, that his benefits never went down because of Bush. Which party do you think he’ll vote for next time?
Me and My stupid self ~ signing out
Novafan
“Who doesn’t love The Onion?”
Probably everyone that voted yesterday to put W back in office. God does love a winner though.
Charles… You just don’t get it. The idiocy, bigotry, and close-mindedness I speak of isn’t Bush. I can live with Bush, push come to shove. I cannot, however, tolerate raceism of any kind being LEGALIZED. And that’s what happened on the second. Across the country, homosexual people were officially denied the right to legally be seen as families.
And that disgusts me. To no end does it disgust me.
Then again, I’m a bit of a bigot, too. I have this strong loathing of people with no ability to expand their horizons who go out of their way to prevent others from doing so.
So yeah, I think the majority in this country are IDIOTS. Thousands are being treated like they’re less than full citizens because of their orientation. It’s just WRONG. Everyone should be EQUAL. PERIOD.
Then again, this is a country well known for being blind to such things being in the Constitution… After all, how else do you explain the history of minorities here? Slavery, segrigation, japanese internment camps, and now a ban on gay marriage.
You say I’m wrong to be angry, to call this as I see it? To see ignorance growing stronger in a country that was supposed to bring equality to all within it?
And you call US the fools. Go take a good, long hard look in a mirror. And then come back here and tell us you’re proud of what you see.
Well, this sucks.
I guess the one benefit is that Jon Stewart and the writers of the Daily Show will still have their work cut out for them by being able to show more clips of Bush being retarded and letting the footage speak for itself.
Should work to the advantage of Air America too. Look what Clinton did for right wing radio.
First off, let me start out by saying this.
I’m gay.
That’s right. I’m an immoral, hedonistic, worthless dÿkë of a human being who only serves to pull myself and my love away from the gene pool and out of the clutches of girl-hungry men who want snoo-snoo. I’m that woman that no one wants around their children for fear she’ll “infect” or “influence” them with her nasty nasty demonic ways. I am the terror that flaps in the–wait a minute.
Ahem.
Does it matter that I’m also a human being? Does it matter that I’ve been in a steady romantic relationship with a woman I’ve known for nine years? Does it matter that I, too, am a Christian with a conservative Texas background? That I came from the SAME SORT OF STOCK as many southern Republicans?
Apparently not because the moment I realise something about myself, I’m immediately ostracised and any opinion anybody has of me immediately falters if not crashes straight through the Earth.
God knows I prayed about it because He listened and lead me to the woman I’m with now and I’m not planning on ending that relationship any time soon and neither is she; I’ve never been this comfortable with another human being.
What most homosexuals I know want (and I honestly don’t know many very well, all but four of my friends are straight, HAH) is not “marriage” but SOME SORT of legal recognition of their union and the rights that go along with it. Call it a Civil Union, I don’t care. I just want to be able to cover my love on my insurance and share other government benefits. Any sort of step in that direction would be great and wonderful to me; the heterosexuals can keep their marriage.
And for some crap I wrote earlier today elsewhere:
No wonder I connect with rats and mice so much; they’re not even included as animals worth protecting by the USDA and I’m not even considered much of a human being because, ooooh, I’m a woman and I don’t like men in a sexual way. I’m a woman in love with another woman and she is the greatest blessing to my life that God could ever bestow upon me.
And yes, that WOULD be the same God whose name people are throwing around in order to put some religious backing to their votes and call it “morality.”
Well, if you go by everything the New Testament says, then women shouldn’t have the right to lead anything in the church. Women should serve only as an obedient little spaniel of a helper to their husbands, keep their graceful feminine voices quiet when a man is speaking, never argue with a thing he says, never think for themselves, and just wander aimlessly through life as trophy breedingstock. Well, gee. The Yoo Ess ain’t like that no more. But them dámņ fággøŧš are goin’ ta hëll anyway! The Bible says so!
Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? The picking and choosing? Blot out this passage and take this one to heart, hmm.
To err is human. The entire New Testament was written by human hands, it contains human biases (by my personal belief), it is not the verbatim Word of God although I have no doubt that it was divinely inspired. We are not Elohim, we can NOT even begin to FATHOM what God is, we can only know the merest fraction of anything. Knowing too much would certainly cause us to go mad; you KNOW just by looking at history what sorts of mental issues supposedly “genius” people suffered, especially those of the artistic realm like Schumann, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Edgar Allan Poe, Frida Kahlo, the list extends into eternity. God keeps us happily ignorant.
The moment you become God, then please. Pass judgment and condemn all you want. That is not the place of humans when one is not harming another in any way.
How is my love for Avery hurtful to anyone else? If you yammer on about how we each could be having children were we with men, I’ll have you know that with my screwed up reproductive system, I’m probably not even fertile! Besides, with all the abortions, infantocide, starving and/or parentless children, why would we even want to contribute to the stinking morass of bodies when we could save someone who needs a family through adopting?
It’s a hypothetical situation anyway. Why don’t you say the same about heterosexual married couples who never have had children?
Mmm, the ongoing debates about companion/domestic animal overpopulation and no one dares face that fact about humans. Same stuff goes for us as it does for animals, folks. We run out of resources, we die. It may not be in this lifetime, but on down the road if things keep going as they are there won’t be much of anything left.
You don’t know what it’s like until you’re on the other side.
Luigi,
James Tichy: Fox News says Bush has Ohio.
Luigi Novi: Even though everyone else is saying that Ohio is too close to call and has to be thoroughly examined? Gee, I’m shocked!
Nope, no Republican bias at THAT network.
Jerome Maida: And, of course, it couldn’t be that everyone else was WRONG and that Fox was RIGHT. As far as bias, please. Fox was the LAST network to call Florida. They were the first to call Ohio because Michael Barone accurately read the numbers. For CNN and everyone else (I watched some of them and ABC because of Jeff Greenfield, George Will and because Brit Hume looked bored most of the night) to say the race was “too close to call” with a 140,000 vote advantage and 97% of precincts counted was beyond ludicrous. You could see it in their eyes: THEY ALL WANTED ANOTHER FLORIDA and were determined to try and manufacture it if it didn’t come naturally.
Am I being partisan?
Try this exchange, after a reporter told Peter Jennings at about 3 AM that the Bush White House was a little angry that Kerry was not conceding and that he was potentially going to try to drag out Ohio, despite the fact that Bush’s margin was greater than the number of provisional ballots to be counted.
JENNINGS: Yes, but you’re giving us White House spin –
REPORTER: Well, it’s, uh, kind of hard to spin the simple math, Peter.
Nope, these other networks aren’t biased at all.